It’s horrid, I know. To have a dead baby inside you and to suddenly find that anti-abortion lawmaker you so gleefully supported is preventing you from removing its lifeless body. Who could have known, right? Maybe if we pray?
Maybe going through that will give them the missing empathy they needed to be a decent human being
At this point, in 2023, we are on the verge of an authoritarian takeover. We lost RvW, next is same sex marriage, then voting rights, and boom! Back to pre 1920. So forgive me if I’m not particularly sad when leopards devour someone’s face.
You’re not describing empathy. It sounds like the person you’re responding to already knows how bad that outcome is which is why they’re against authoritarian law to begin with. You’re just more sympathetic towards people facing the consequences of their own decisions. Which is fine. But that crowd already used up all of mine over COVID. And climate change is just around the corner. Glad you still have some sympathy left to go around for leopard victims.
The thing is, I don’t really care what people “deserve”, or what they “don’t deserve”. How should I know? I’ll be a dork and quote Tolkien: “Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.”
But I do care about who’s in the pact. We have an agreement, between us, we decent people. We watch out for each other. We protect each other. Or if we can’t, when something terrible is done to somebody, at the very least, we speak out, in protest, in sympathy, in sorrow. And the people covered by this pact, as far as I’m concerned, are the people who follow it - that’s it, the sole criteria for membership, about the lowest bar possible.
I’m not going to force somebody to carry a dead fetus because they forced other people to do so, but when the cruel laws they always thought would only apply to other people suddenly apply to them, I don’t owe them my sympathy either. They aren’t in the pact.
Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition… There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
Which is why you and others here are disturbing me quite a bit right now.
Hmm, a quote I quite like myself. Let’s see. I have defined two groups. I have not suggested that either group should not be bound by the law, nor that either group should by better protected by the law than the other. In fact, this entire part of the discussion is predicated on the law, which one group has imposed on the other, applying equally.
Then shouldn’t the call be “let’s change the law so none of these women suffer” rather than “it’s good if the women who voted for the people who changed the law suffer for it?”
I’m with you on this. I worry that too mamy people cheer on the pain of the “other” without realizing that in doing so they become the worst of what they hate
People make bad decisions, but then some of them grow. To tell them that they deserve their pain, just because they didn’t understand what it was they were doing, is pretty fucked up
Come on, be better than them. No woman deserves to suffer through this even if they voted against their own best interests.
It’s horrid, I know. To have a dead baby inside you and to suddenly find that anti-abortion lawmaker you so gleefully supported is preventing you from removing its lifeless body. Who could have known, right? Maybe if we pray?
Maybe going through that will give them the missing empathy they needed to be a decent human being
You’re not sounding especially empathetic yourself.
At this point, in 2023, we are on the verge of an authoritarian takeover. We lost RvW, next is same sex marriage, then voting rights, and boom! Back to pre 1920. So forgive me if I’m not particularly sad when leopards devour someone’s face.
You’re not describing empathy. It sounds like the person you’re responding to already knows how bad that outcome is which is why they’re against authoritarian law to begin with. You’re just more sympathetic towards people facing the consequences of their own decisions. Which is fine. But that crowd already used up all of mine over COVID. And climate change is just around the corner. Glad you still have some sympathy left to go around for leopard victims.
It’s not time to be empathetic, it’s time for you fucking Americans to get mad. To riot against your rights being stripped.
I mean… you can get mad and still be empathetic for suffering women.
Their entire platform is to lack empathy, and they voted for it.
I’m not gonna pretend to care about them, simply because they couldn’t care about anyone else.
The thing is, I don’t really care what people “deserve”, or what they “don’t deserve”. How should I know? I’ll be a dork and quote Tolkien: “Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.”
But I do care about who’s in the pact. We have an agreement, between us, we decent people. We watch out for each other. We protect each other. Or if we can’t, when something terrible is done to somebody, at the very least, we speak out, in protest, in sympathy, in sorrow. And the people covered by this pact, as far as I’m concerned, are the people who follow it - that’s it, the sole criteria for membership, about the lowest bar possible.
I’m not going to force somebody to carry a dead fetus because they forced other people to do so, but when the cruel laws they always thought would only apply to other people suddenly apply to them, I don’t owe them my sympathy either. They aren’t in the pact.
Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition… There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
Which is why you and others here are disturbing me quite a bit right now.
Hmm, a quote I quite like myself. Let’s see. I have defined two groups. I have not suggested that either group should not be bound by the law, nor that either group should by better protected by the law than the other. In fact, this entire part of the discussion is predicated on the law, which one group has imposed on the other, applying equally.
Then shouldn’t the call be “let’s change the law so none of these women suffer” rather than “it’s good if the women who voted for the people who changed the law suffer for it?”
I’m with you on this. I worry that too mamy people cheer on the pain of the “other” without realizing that in doing so they become the worst of what they hate
People make bad decisions, but then some of them grow. To tell them that they deserve their pain, just because they didn’t understand what it was they were doing, is pretty fucked up